Commissar Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 If Israel does a pre-emptive strike on Iran, there is no doubt that Iran will retaliate with its full military to strike back at them. If the US intervenes it will be clearly on Israel's side. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Look at a map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I know full well that Iran would need to go through Iraq to get to Israel but that would only matter with ground troops. A full missile barrage with nukes wouldn't need to worry about US ground troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 In the US the president doesn't have ultimate authority, does that mean the US isn't a democracy? a bit of a stretch given that all the other leaders that share power with the president are also elected. In my view Iran is a Democratic Theocracy while the US is a Democratic Republic. Neither country is a pure democracy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> uh, no, it is not. it is a theocratic republic. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Labels. TOO MANY FREAKING LABELS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I know full well that Iran would need to go through Iraq to get to Israel but that would only matter with ground troops. air power as well. A full missile barrage with nukes wouldn't need to worry about US ground troops. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> nope, but it would then need to worry about retaliation that would put all 68 million people in iran out of their misery. should iran attempt something, the rest of the world might actually agree the world's police force (uh, us, the US) should take action in kind, but a bit harder. remember, even if iran DOES manage to get nukes, they won't have enough to damage very many of us in the rest of the world. i.e. it would be literal suicide. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I hardly think they're gonna launch anything, except if you do it first that is. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) - Iranians don't hate their regime the way Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don't know much about Iran then. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (w00t) ....my friend to the contrary, your statement just proves that in fact you are the one that doesn't know one bit about the current political and social conditions in Iran today. I bet on Fox news they say that the Iranian leadership are a bunch of killers who eat small children for breakfast and execute several hundred ppl a day " ....yeah right, it's a constitutional Islamic Republic, their president is the head of government (executive body), and is elected by direct vote of the people for a four year term and could be reelected for another term, cabinet members on the other hand get the parliament vote. The legislative assembly (Majlis) consists of 270 members which are elected for four years. Therefor, Ahmadinejad was elected by Iranian people in a fair elections which can be confirmed by international bodies that oversaw the elections.....yes one can say the supreme leader, currently Ali Khamenei has the most power in Iran, but he hasn't got all the political power in his hands, thus it's far from any dictatorship, Iran is nothing but a theocratic political system instituted some conservative Islamic reforms. *snip from the forest of irrelevance and opinion* <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? Well I have news for you: everyone (or at least those who know something about current events) knows that the Iranians despise their government. The government has been brutally repressing its own citizens for years. The so-called election was rigged, as most of their elections are. Do you really think the Iranians would like someone who is actively restricing their rights, which is what their current leader is doing right now? Or maybe you didn't notice when the leader announced he was banning all western media from his country, such as music and television. And people will of course flame me for this, but I don't trust Iran to have nukes. First of all, the leader is a psycho. Anyone who publicly denies the holocaust even existed shouldn't be in office in the first place. Also, of the two nations to abuse their right to nuclear weapons, a country like Iran is more likely to do so than the U.S. Edited January 6, 2006 by Mothman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Launch Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 And people will of course flame me for this, but I don't trust Iran to have nukes. First of all, the leader is a psycho. Anyone who publicly denies the holocaust even existed shouldn't be in office in the first place. Also, of the two nations to abuse their right to nuclear weapons, a country like Iran is more likely to do so than the U.S. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not flaming you... I don't think I'm capable of flaming anyone... and I must say I agree with you about not trusting Iran with nuclear weapons. However, I don't trust any country with nuclear weapons. Additionally, I don't think it's for anyone to say who deserves to get nuclear weapons and who doesn't. Either we're all allowed them, or we're all not. But that's just my opinion. Bleh... I hate threads like these... feel... so... dirty... *shudder* [color=gray][i]OO-TINI![/i][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 However, I don't trust any country with nuclear weapons. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent point, oh lady of cookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 International law (or at least the non-proliferation treaty) says that only five countries can have nuclear weapons - the US, Russia, France, China and the UK. This isn't fair, but it would be quite nice to have international law that everyone followed. It would make the world more secure, and in time the bad laws could be reamde to be fairer. However, there's no way to make Iran follow the law unless Israel, Pakistan and India will do the same. And North Korea, of course. :ph34r: "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 "Additionally, I don't think it's for anyone to say who deserves to get nuclear weapons and who doesn't. Either we're all allowed them, or we're all not." Huh? That's silly. The world's countries aren't treated equal nor they should be. Just like I ahve no problem with police officers having guns, and strictly oppose criminals having them; I'd rather have a country like Britain having access to nukes than a rogue, unstable nation like Iran having them. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 However, there's no way to make Iran follow the law unless Israel, Pakistan and India will do the same. And North Korea, of course. :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> israel would and the evidence is the fact that they continually bow to US pressure to step back... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 However, there's no way to make Iran follow the law unless Israel, Pakistan and India will do the same. And North Korea, of course. :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> israel would and the evidence is the fact that they continually bow to US pressure to step back... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, 'cept they've already got nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Iran is very stable, Volourn. As stable as the US if not moreso. Just because you don't agree with their leadership does not make a country unstable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) International law (or at least the non-proliferation treaty) says that only five countries can have nuclear weapons - the US, Russia, France, China and the UK. This isn't fair, but it would be quite nice to have international law that everyone followed. It would make the world more secure, and in time the bad laws could be reamde to be fairer. However, there's no way to make Iran follow the law unless Israel, Pakistan and India will do the same. And North Korea, of course. :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Indeed, the winners of WW2. This was friggin' 60 years ago, time to move on imo. On that note I'd like to see Germany as a permanent member of the security council instead of France or the UK, Germany is, after all, bigger than both. And Mothman, the Iranian leader might be a fundamentalist wacko, but yours is a moron cowboy ****kicker from Texas who is also quite incapable of being in office. I don't trust either of them having their finger on the Nuke Button. Edited January 6, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Agreed. I think it is time for a major restructuring of the UN, the US policies towards the UN, and International Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 "Iran is very stable, Volourn. As stable as the US if not moreso. Just because you don't agree with their leadership does not make a country unstable." There are countries who I disagree with their leadership that i don't feel is unstable. I don't care for Chirac; but France is VERY stable. Heck, I don't care for our Kanadian gov't which are a bunch of crooks; but our country is stable is as well. Iran's country is unstable, imo, because the rulers of Iran rule their country by force which means all it takes is for someone stronger to come along and take them out. That's a sign of an unstable country to me. Not to mention that in 2005 when a country's leader says that another country should be completely wiped out or that a amjor event of the last century is make believe are sure signs of instability. The list goes on... DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 It's good that not just USA has Nukes, there is a balance now, but i know Russia and Germany has nukes, and i think india, pakestan, egypt, china, the 2 koreas, have some too. Now... what do ya want to do? go to war with all of them? maybe i should send a mail to Budapest we should have some Nukes to defend ourself too from freaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Well, 'cept they've already got nukes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> further evidence of their tolerance (of a sort). but, they also know that wiping out their enemies would bring down the wrath of the world, and the US would not be able to help... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 moron<{POST_SNAPBACK}> oh the irony... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 moron<{POST_SNAPBACK}> oh the irony... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh what a lame reply... DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 And Mothman, the Iranian leader might be a fundamentalist wacko, but yours is a moron cowboy ****kicker from Texas who is also quite incapable of being in office. I don't trust either of them having their finger on the Nuke Button. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's more competant than their leader and I'd trust him over Iran's current leader anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta Truth Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Iranian leader develops nukes Iranian leader sells nukes to terrorists buddies Hezbollah situation creates WW3 priceless: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atreides Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 It's good that not just USA has Nukes, there is a balance now, but i know Russia and Germany has nukes, and i think india, pakestan, egypt, china, the 2 koreas, have some too.Now... what do ya want to do? go to war with all of them? maybe i should send a mail to Budapest we should have some Nukes to defend ourself too from freaks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But you guys already have vampires! Spreading beauty with my katana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 And Mothman, the Iranian leader might be a fundamentalist wacko, but yours is a moron cowboy ****kicker from Texas who is also quite incapable of being in office. I don't trust either of them having their finger on the Nuke Button. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's more competant than their leader and I'd trust him over Iran's current leader anyday. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I probably would too, but that doesn't make him a good leader. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now